Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Dec;6(6):1144-1149.
doi: 10.21037/tau.2017.11.30.

In vitro head-to-head comparison of the durability, versatility and efficacy of the NGage and novel Dakota stone retrieval baskets

Affiliations

In vitro head-to-head comparison of the durability, versatility and efficacy of the NGage and novel Dakota stone retrieval baskets

Seth K Bechis et al. Transl Androl Urol. 2017 Dec.

Abstract

Background: To compare head to head two end-engaging nitinol stone retrieval devices available to urologists, in terms of durability, versatility and efficacy.

Methods: For durability testing, 30 NGage and Dakota baskets were cycled 20 times between grasping and releasing synthetic stone models and evaluated for damage or device failure. For versatility and efficacy testing, baskets were assessed in their ability to capture and release stone models from 1 to 11 mm. Each stone was raised above the capture site and the basket was opened to passively release the stone. If the stone did not release, the basket handle was shaken and the OpenSure feature employed if needed. Manual release was used as a last resort.

Results: Durability-the Cook NGage demonstrated a statistically significant increased rate of visible device breakdown (P=0.0046) in 8 of 30 (26.7%) devices vs. 0 of 30 Dakota devices, with mean damage at 13.5 cycles. Versatility and efficacy-both 8 mm baskets successfully captured stones from 1-8 mm. The Dakota more effectively released 7-8 mm stones (P<0.0001). NGage required manual release of 8 mm stones in 13 cases compared to none with Dakota. For 11 mm baskets, the Dakota released all stones up to 10 mm with simple opening, while the NGage released 10 of 15 (67%) of 9 mm stones and 1 of 15 (7%) of 10 mm stones by simple opening. For 11 mm stones, the Dakota captured 100% whereas NGage could not capture any.

Conclusions: Both baskets showed similar durability characteristics. The Dakota basket more effectively captured and released stones over 7 mm, as compared to the NGage basket. The OpenSure aspect conferred an advantage in handling and release of larger stones. These in vitro results demonstrate potential versatility, durability and efficacy of the Dakota basket.

Keywords: Kidney stone; durability; nitinol; stone basket; tipless.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: SK Bechis is a Consultant to Boston Scientific; JE Abbott is a speaker for and Consultant to Boston Scientific; RL Sur is a speaker for Cook Medical, speaker for and Consultant to Boston Scientific.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The two commercially available end-engaging Nitinol stone retrieval devices, NGage™ (Cook Urological Inc., Bloomington, IN, USA) and Dakota™ (Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA), hold stones like a basket but engage and release like a grasper. (A) Closeup of the NGage in open position; (B) opening of the Dakota at full deflection of the ureteroscope; (C,D) Dakota with OpenSure™ handle in normal open basket position (C) and with handle engaged in full open position (D).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Durability, versatility and efficacy testing. (A) The basket was passed through a simulated endoscopic working channel and cycled in grasping and releasing synthetic stones; (B) red arrows depict areas of visible basket breakdown in baskets inspected after repetitive use; (C) stone model showing 1 and 9 mm synthetic model stones.

Similar articles

References

    1. Ptashnyk T, Cueva-Martinez A, Michel MS, et al. Comparative investigations on the retrieval capabilities of various baskets and graspers in four ex vivo models. Eur Urol 2002;41:406-10. 10.1016/S0302-2838(02)00063-5 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chow K. Peripherals for Mechanical Stone Manipulation. In: Payne S, Eardley I, O'Flynn K. editors. Imaging and Technology in Urology. London: Springer-Verlag, 2012:201-3.
    1. Patel N, Akhavein A, Hinck B, et al. Tipless Nitinol Stone Baskets: Comparison of Penetration Force, Radial Dilation Force, Opening Dynamics, and Deflection. Urology 2017;103:256-60. 10.1016/j.urology.2017.01.010 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Khanna R, Monga M. Instrumentation in endourology. Ther Adv Urol 2011;3:119-26. 10.1177/1756287211403190 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chenven ES, Bagley DH. Retrieval and releasing capabilities of stone-basket designs in vitro. J Endourol 2005;19:204-9. 10.1089/end.2005.19.204 - DOI - PubMed